I contend that nowhere in the powers ammendment that determines the actions permited to the senate is that body given the authority to appropriate money to programs of the like of those for which money was appropriated under The Unwed and Teenage Mothers Protection Bill. Therefore, as the money I paid in my taxes is being used for unconstitutional purposes, I ask that The Unwed and Teenage Mothers Protection Bill be declared unconstitutional and without effect.

Logged

"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed – and hence clamorous to be led to safety – by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." – H.L. Mencken

I'm presuming that the version here is the version that passed. What follows is my opinion

Sections 1 and 3 would be constitutional under a broad interpretation of section 1 clause 16 of the Powers amendment. Whether clause 16 can be interpreted that broadly is something the Court will need to decide. A broad interpretation of section 1 clause 9 of the Powers amendment would help support the constututionality of section 1 of the Act, but would not be enough by itself,

Section 2 is clearly constitutional under section 1 clause 14 of the Powers amendment, insofar as it related to the treatment of infectious disease. It would require a overly broad intrepretation of that clause to extend that clause to other forms of health care assistanc, especially given the explit narrow scope of clause 14.

Section 4 is constitutional to the extent that sections 1, 2, and 3 are found to be constitutional.

As written, section 5 is unconstitutional. If it were limited in scope, child care assistance could be constitutional, but I don't see anything that makes a generic child care subsidy constitutional

Since I may be a Supreme Court Justice soon, I shall not discuss this any further, as I may be involved in this case directly, until the trial starts.

I assure those concerned that I will not let my personal feelings about this bill get in the way of my job, which is simply to interpret the Constitution and to determine whether the law in question is a violation of it or not.

I'm presuming that the version here is the version that passed. What follows is my opinion

Sections 1 and 3 would be constitutional under a broad interpretation of section 1 clause 16 of the Powers amendment. Whether clause 16 can be interpreted that broadly is something the Court will need to decide. A broad interpretation of section 1 clause 9 of the Powers amendment would help support the constututionality of section 1 of the Act, but would not be enough by itself,

Section 2 is clearly constitutional under section 1 clause 14 of the Powers amendment, insofar as it related to the treatment of infectious disease. It would require a overly broad intrepretation of that clause to extend that clause to other forms of health care assistanc, especially given the explit narrow scope of clause 14.

Section 4 is constitutional to the extent that sections 1, 2, and 3 are found to be constitutional.

As written, section 5 is unconstitutional. If it were limited in scope, child care assistance could be constitutional, but I don't see anything that makes a generic child care subsidy constitutional

"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed – and hence clamorous to be led to safety – by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." – H.L. Mencken

"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed – and hence clamorous to be led to safety – by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." – H.L. Mencken

Once the Senate pulls its finger out and actually holds a vote we should (hopefully) get a new Justice to make up for Liberty's extending absence and therefore we will have at least a majority of the Court to hear cases. It then depends how long it takes the NixonNow case to get considered and ruled upon.

Once the Senate pulls its finger out and actually holds a vote we should (hopefully) get a new Justice to make up for Liberty's extending absence and therefore we will have at least a majority of the Court to hear cases. It then depends how long it takes the NixonNow case to get considered and ruled upon.

The NixonNow case was filled after this one.

Logged

"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed – and hence clamorous to be led to safety – by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." – H.L. Mencken

Once the Senate pulls its finger out and actually holds a vote we should (hopefully) get a new Justice to make up for Liberty's extending absence and therefore we will have at least a majority of the Court to hear cases. It then depends how long it takes the NixonNow case to get considered and ruled upon.

The NixonNow case was filled after this one.

Nevermind, I thought you meant andrew vs. NixonNow.

Logged

"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed – and hence clamorous to be led to safety – by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." – H.L. Mencken